3v0 Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 I have never been able to understand why people wish to own dogs - of any kind - unless they are working dogs such as those that are used for looking after sheep or for hunting etc. It's a power thing. Pet dog owners tend to have large inferiority complexes and get off on having a being, albeit non human, look to them as superior, whereas most other humans probably find them a bit of a wally. I'm sorry what? What kind of absolute b*llocks is that!! "Pet dog owners tend to have large inferiority complexes" maybe some of them do have inferiority complexes but i'm sure most people don't, I'm sure alot of people will agree for instance how pleasant some memories are growing up in a family that has a dog/dogs around, but then again maybe we just block out the memories that our parents had an inferiority complex because they had a pet dog... What a stupid thing to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgy Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 It has probably already been said in this thread somewhere, but I couldn't be arsed reading all the way through it. Apparently these Pit Bull Terriers are very common to drug dealers etc. A necessary item! A form of defence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ykstarr Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 I have never been able to understand why people wish to own dogs - of any kind - unless they are working dogs such as those that are used for looking after sheep or for hunting etc. It's a power thing. Pet dog owners tend to have large inferiority complexes and get off on having a being, albeit non human, look to them as superior, whereas most other humans probably find them a bit of a wally. That is THE stupidest thing I have ever read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 What a stupid thing to say. That is THE stupidest thing I have ever read. I beg to differ. What other, or indeed possible reasons are there for owning a non working dog other than to have them do pointlessly humiliating things like sit up and beg, roll over, fetch etc,etc. IMO, when dogs are not earning their keep by retrieving freshly shot game or dismantling foxes they should be kept in a cage outside and given the occasional hiding lest they forget their place. and parents should certainly not have them in the house with children. It's irresponsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 What other, or indeed possible reasons are there for owning a non working dog other than to have them do pointlessly humiliating things like sit up and beg, roll over, fetch etc,etc. I I've never had a dog that could do any of those things. Or wanted one that could. I haven't even been able to train them to shit outside your house! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Well someone has! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Might not be training, dogs have very good taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Sigh. I have two dogs and two children. The reason we have them (the dogs that is) is mainly because we like animals, but I am a great believer in children having as much exposure to animals, the responsibility of properly looking after them and understanding how to treat them and their limitations. The dogs are not taught tricks, that is not why we have them. However, both children enjoy playing with the dogs and get a real thrill out of interacting with the dogs and making it bring back a ball, stick, or just run along side. The children see the effects of their kind interaction with the dogs and are rewarded when the dog responds positively and enthusiastically. I enjoy the countryside (not great hikes, but gentle strolls) and having dogs is a great way to enjoy the rural setting that we are lucky enough to have. Each to his own, but we would miss having a dog very much. All that said, you have to accept that a dog is a domesticated animal and acknowledge its limitations; to do anything else is to abrogate your own responsibility as a dog owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Sigh. I have two dogs and two children. The reason we have them (the dogs that is) is mainly because we like animals, but I am a great believer in children having as much exposure to animals, the responsibility of properly looking after them and understanding how to treat them and their limitations. The dogs are not taught tricks, that is not why we have them. However, both children enjoy playing with the dogs and get a real thrill out of interacting with the dogs and making it bring back a ball, stick, or just run along side. The children see the effects of their kind interaction with the dogs and are rewarded when the dog responds positively and enthusiastically. I enjoy the countryside (not great hikes, but gentle strolls) and having dogs is a great way to enjoy the rural setting that we are lucky enough to have. Each to his own, but we would miss having a dog very much. All that said, you have to accept that a dog is a domesticated animal and acknowledge its limitations; to do anything else is to abrogate your own responsibility as a dog owner. There's nothing wrong with many dogs - only man has 'bred' most dogs over the past few hundred years to do various jobs from Terrier rat catchers to Pit-Bull fighting dogs - and people seem to have forgotten that. There are many breeds that are 'suitable' around older children. IMO pet dogs shouldn't be discouraged as they are good for people in a wide variety of ways. The more pets we have the healthier we are, and there will be less prevalence of modern diseases such as asthma - but pets should always be watched and never trusted - even cats have been known to accidently smother babies. 8 pit-bulls were seized in St Helens and Widnes today (6 in the same town the little girl died) where police suspect they were being trained for dog fighting. Pet dogs are one thing, but killing machines are another, and IMO why this guy (the owner) should stand trial for murder because, despite written warnings, he still allowed a killing machine around his niece. The family are also culpable for allowing the dog in the house. I hope other people learn from this - but due to the number of pond life that have such dogs - I doubt if it will be the last we hear of this sort of event. Dogs bred to be killing machines in the past include Pit-Bulls, Alsations, Dobermans and Rotweilers - which are dogs that should never be left with children. Instinct always eventually kicks in with dogs - and if you do leave such dogs with children - I stand by my assertion that you have something deeply wrong with your brain. You should never trust any dog around a very young child - I have even seen a spoilt Yorkshire terrier go for a young baby. They follow pack mentality - you might be the boss but the smaller your kids are the further down in pack order they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Agree wholeheartedly Albert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazman Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Its very easy for the dog owners to go on about how its the owner and the enviroment that controls the dog. While it may be true it isnt going to help the poor little kid who gets killed when one decides to 'go off' If it saves a single kids life then ban the breeding of ALL the dangerous ones. I'm sure a lot of you have young kids (as I do) and you have to ask yourself why live with the risk. You can't control how every owner looks after their animal but you can play the percentages and remove the problems dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 And the problem owners who can turn any kind of dog into a neurotic time bomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 I have even seen a spoilt Yorkshire terrier go for a young baby. Nasty things, those Yorkshire Terriers. I've even heard of one that killed a rottweiller! The rottweiller choked on it, apparently! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Take Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 I don't agree with any generalisation of dogs, eg that all rottweilers are potentially dangerous - it comes down to the individual dog and owner - for instance I know one rottie that is scared of young adults to the extent that it will run away when it encounters a 'yoof'. This dog is one of the softest, most sociable dogs I know. Admittedly, it is on the soft end of the breed, looking in appearance almost more like a labrador than a 'fighting' rottie. BUT - no dog, no matter how big or small, should be left alone with young children. Even if the dog itself is considered by the owner to be trustworthy, how tempting must it be for a young child to grab hold of a dog so that it can be stroked, patted, whatever? No dog is going to react well to being poked and prodded by a being it considers as lower than itself in its pack and there's no way a young child is going to be considered as alpha leader by a dog, especially if it is unfamiliar with the child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bastard Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 Yes, there are Pit Bulls on the IOM. How do I know ? http://www.youtube.com/results?search_quer...of+man+pit+bull I'm trying to figure out where this is from the footage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.